Most recently, our State has seen or will see the departure of three of our most active citizens. From Kremlum Sandus Province, M. James Thompson has left micronationalism in general to pursue fields beyond the community; from Volfa Province, M. André Sammut is preparing to leave the State on I Maio (the 1st of May) with his province in order to pursue national independence. Whilst we bear no grievance to their departure, as both have been active members of the Socialist framework of our State of Sandus and are pursuing just-as constructive projects, clear administrative ramifications arise as a result of these departures.

The first ramification will be the difficulty in maintaining our Socialist democracy. As it stands, the Office of the Sôgmô is an elected office and the Party runs congresses, de facto parliamentary sessions, biannually in April and in November. At the moment, the Office of the Sôgmô will not be pursuing an end to the elections held on the Winter Solstice which elect the Sôgmô. Instead, we must reconsider the biannual Party Congresses. At the moment, two of three of the most active citizens have left; the census does not reflect this change at the moment. However, it is clear that biannual congresses have become untenable and, therefore, must be reduced to annual congresses around the time of the October Revolution in Novembro (November).

The second ramification is concerning Sandum democracy itself. The Office of the Sôgmô has long pursued the advancement of democracy in Sandus, often convening with citizens or — nonetheless — seeking their advice on specific matters. This too has become untenable in the current scenario of Sandum democracy. Whilst the Office of the Sôgmô will respect petitions of redress from any other Sandum citizen, it is now of little sense to attempt to rule with the Sandum people; we must now rule in the name of the Sandum people, as most elected officials do. It is our hope to, one day in the future, renew our progress towards a democratic situation in Sandus but, for the time being, it seems that the departure of our most active citizenship has given new rise to the role of absolutism in Sandus.

The third ramification is in concerns to culture. With the building of Sandum culture, it was this Office’s hope to unity the Sandum People in national fraternity; with the foundation of the Sandum Cultural Authority, an authority which never sat, we had hoped to increase the role of other Sandum citizens in the building of national culture. One view of M. Sammut on his decision of departure was that the Sandum culture is too dominated by the practice of the fount of honour of the Sôgmô. Indeed this view is of the greatest demise to cultural advancement in Sandus towards the building of a unified nation: it is too often the Sôgmô’s sole work.
The departure of our key citizens will indeed warrant a restructuring of cultural advancement and move it from the role of the Sôgmô to all citizens in general. The concept of equality in Sandus must be stressed and, as such, Sandum citizens should consider their rights of expression and culture that is given to all, not just the Sôgmô. We have, in the past, tried to make citizens more involved in cultural advancement; whilst some have taken part, the vast majority either outright refused to or were not dedicated in doing so and, instead, focused on other matters. We must further consider and study how to involve more citizens, despite the increased education of rights of all citizens, and we must begin a process of making sure all citizens are aware how cultural advancement is the building of the Nation and the building of Socialism.

The fourth ramification is diplomacy. Now that most active citizens have left, there is no check to the Sôgmô’s power in concerns to this. Previously, the citizenship at large were a great check against the Sôgmô in concerns to Sandum diplomatic policy, such as Libera, as their petitions would seek the reduction of their importance. Indeed, at the last CCPS Congress, it was the citizenship who suggested to this Office that a reduction of Libera‘s importance be considered. Today with the majority of our active citizenship gone, this check has been removed. The sole check that remains, instead, is that of the less-powerful influence of our allies, who often provide influence to Sandum policy but who do not have a constitutional voice in Sandus. Though our allies have often been more anti-Libera, their influence in our State is minimal, to which point a certain renewal of Libera‘s and Realism‘s will undoubtedly take place in the vacuum of democratic check against the Sôgmô’s diplomatic power.

These ramifications concerning our State will undoubtedly have important implications in the future, as our State moves on from this event. Sandum history, like all history, is made of trends: this reduction of active citizenship will cause a reduction of Sandum socialist democracy. However, as our cultural and social nature has dictated to us in the past, our State and this Office shall move on from this. This Office shall continue to pursue grand democratic achievements, including the Council parliament and the election of people’s representatives to the Office of the Sôgmô, as well as the continued election of the Sôgmô; we simply consider democracy temporary untenable in a Sandus of reduced activity. We shall continue to pursue national advancement and cultural advancement and, in the future, we shall author a report on the role of cultural advancement under this Office. With the upcoming construction of educational programs, our State shall also seek to educate citizens on all our rights in terms of expression, conscience, and culture. We too must be cautious of the role of the Sôgmô in cultural advancement and should not make Sandum culture to seem as a Sôgmô-only prerogative: it is a citizens-together prerogative for the building of national unity and fraternity. The final solution to this reduction of citizenship should be to seek a future of Sandus in a far-less polarised position. Whilst we will not entertain views of any removal of our key policies, this Office must learn — through its own self-check alone — to pursue a less polarised Sandus and, instead, pursue a national image and media considered open to all peoples, especially our own.

Sandus shall, at this point, be breasting the wave of a new trend across her, one that will halt current objectives and possibly permanently destroy undo them. Regardless, we are open-minded and pensive to our road ahead as a nation smaller, yet still proud.

For the progress of the State and the unity of our People,— Sôgmô Sörgel